Promises, promises, promises …

Randall Hoven, over at American Thinker, provides us with one of the most succinct and powerful posts I’ve seen is quite a while.

Remember this quote?

“If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem.” President Obama, September 2009.

That was the “promise” that Obama made – pass health care reform and pass deficit reduction. Except, as usual with this man, it appears the opposite is actually true. And that is to be found in a CBO graph.

So the projection shown in the graph is that if we were to spend on those programs at the March 2010 baseline (as the law reads now) from now till 2020 we’d spend about 400 billion, but with the new and improved ObamaCare, that goes to over 600 billion? Yup, real “deficit reduction” in that package, huh?

We’re also seeing the stirrings of a move from the left to dramatically and drastically cut military spending. Already the war in Afghanistan has gone from the “good and necessary war” per Democrats to one they don’t want to fund anymore. Apparently the military is the area of choice within which the Democrats want to “cut spending”. Again, Hoven, looking at CBO numbers, provides some context to the debate:

The bottom line is, of course, that ObamaCare is the biggest “deficit reduction” hoax foisted upon the citzenry of the US since the debate about income tax which claimed it would never rise above 2%. And, in fact, it is the rise of entitlement spending – not military spending – where our problem lies.

And for those of you who bought into the monstrosity of ObamaCare under the “deficit reduction” premise – shame on you. Why is it you demonstrate common sense when email scammers from Nigeria try to get your bank account number, but you fall right into the largest legislative scam in recent history based on vague and nonsensical promises that most 5th graders could see through?

Of course you’re most likely among the same people who bought into the hype surrounding this empty suit we now have as a president, so I shouldn’t be that suprised I suppose.

I have an HSA account, so I have to pay whenever I see my doctor face to face. My doctor suggested I just send him an email with any small condition, and he can try to diagnose it via email. I can include pics, too. This saves me from all charges and works well. He nailed my wife’s skin problem this way and he even diagnosed my pneumonia once via email / phone. Yes, he made me get an X-ray to confirm, but it certainly saved me the one hour of time and 80 bucks. Oh, and he also is a workaholic with an i-Phone, so I actually got his answer to me on a Saturday night once…I bet his wife loves him diagnosing skin problems over dinner.
So I am all for emailing doctors. Eventually, the medical group he works for will figure this out and charge per email like lawyers. (Though, maybe not – seems to me that doctor’s offices have tons and tons of overhead in the form of staff.)
On an unrelated note, my HSA plan just changed to become complete crap. The maximum out of pocket just soared without the premium coming down. I am guessing it is due to Obamacare passing and them having to accept anyone into the plan.

When you have Krugman and Co. all militating for nationalized medicine, the Obamic BS takes on a different hue for many Americans; it becomes somehow plausible.
THE thing that should be required of anyone for whom we vote in the near future: a pledge to repeal ObamaCare, root and branch.
It is time to return to markets as our economic model.

McQ – And for those of you who bought into the monstrosity of ObamaCare under the “deficit reduction” premise – shame on you. Why is it you demonstrate common sense when email scammers from Nigeria try to get your bank account number, but you fall right into the largest legislative scam in recent history based on vague and nonsensical promises that most 5th graders could see through?

Liberals didn’t “buy into” anything: THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING. Indeed, we hear grumbling from them that ObamaCare didn’t go far enough.

Yes, there are a lot of people who voted for The Dear Golfer because they are – bluntly – credulous idiots who were so caught up in the hype that it never occured to them to think about anything other than how wonderful everything would be when HE was elected. Now, to the extent that they have started thinking at all (which isn’t much), it’s how to rationalize their stupidity. “I’m not a stupid person, am I? So, I can’t have made a stupid decision, right? So… what DID I do, and why?”

Some are taking the tack that they were fooled, or that The Dear Golfer has “disappointed” them. “What happened to the magic?” they cry. The liberal propaganda machine is ready for these people with a convenient excuse: “Friends, Obama hasn’t failed (and, by extension, you weren’t stupid and gullible when you voted for him)! He’s been THWARTED! He only got a few parts of his wonderful agenda passed. If he’d gotten it all, things WOULD be as wonderful as he promised! And who thwarted him? Who is holding our country back on its journey to paradise? It’s EVIL-DOERS! Yes, that’s it: those damned teabaggers and obstructionist Rethuglikkkans are stopping him because they hate having a black man in the White House.”

The rest are merely pretending that nothing bad is happening, or that it would be this way no matter who was in the White House. These are the folks who will, if pressed, talk about the “good things” The Dear Golfer has done (never getting into specifics), ignore any predictions that they will make things worse, and ultimately claim that things would be the same if Yosemite Sam had been elected and that they were much, much worse when Bush was in office. Once again, the liberal machine is ready for them: play down or bury any gloom ‘n’ doom stories and feed the ignorant hoipoloi on a steady diet of pap.

…credulous idiots who were so caught up in the hype that it never occured to them to think about anything other than how wonderful everything would be when HE was elected.
The word “independents” comes to mind…

These people are never going to let something like the truth get in their way.

There are some things that are just hard for this old man to understand. Maybe someone out there can help me.

I recently came across, on the web, an interview given some while back by Warren Buffit. In one segment the interviewer asked Mr. Buffit his opinion of Obama’s proposed health care program. Paraphrasing, he said that if his options were Plan A, do nothing, and Plan B, the proposed health care program, he would opt for the plan, however, he would prefer a Plan C, reduce health care costs. He pointed out that America spends 17% of their GDP on health care, where as, the rest of the world spends 9%. He, also, noted that on a per capita basis America ha far fewer medical doctors and medical facilities than these other countries ( by other countries I have to assume that he is talking about developed countries which means that most if not all have socialized health care ). Unfortunately the interviewer did not pursue the matter further.

So how is it possible that countries with socialized health care spend less of their GDP on health care than America? From my point of view its a problem of supply and demand; too much demand for health care and too little supply of doctors and facilities to meet the demand, and therefore higher cost. Its a lack of competition. Why does America have too few doctors and facilities and too little competition? In my opinion the cause can be laid at the feet of the American Medical Association (AMA). The AMA has had virtually monopolistic control over medical school accreditation and over the number of new applicants accepted into medical school each year. Its in their interest to keep the supply down, it increases their income. This is not news. The issue has been debated on numerous occasions to no avail. So I say forget the AMA. We don’t need the AMA’s approval to solve this problem. America needs to fund and equip and staff more medical schools; preferably with private funds or a combination of private and public funds. and don’t give the AMA a voice ( we are surely smart enough to find another way to make sure these schools maintain high standards). If we could do this the problem of high medical in America would resolve itself in about one generation.

So. Am I just a silly old man who doesn’t understand the issue or is over simplifying the problem or am I just missing something? I wish someone would tell me.

The key problem we face is that, due to the tax code (starting in the 40s under FDR) health insurance became something typically provided by employeers or (later, with LBJ’s Medicare and Medicaid) the government.

The result of this is that there is no price shopping by consumers, who don’t directly pay the costs at point of service. Hence there is no market incentive for competition.

This also plays out in places like Australia (who “reformed” their medical system in 2008), UK (who is thinking of reforming NHS), and Canada (which is thinking of reforming their Medicare). Socialized medical care has the same inherent problem. All countries with socialized medical care are trying to “thread the needle” between crap care and unaffordable costs, and are getting stuck on both sides . . .

US medical care is a bit more expensive than the others. We also have the best quality care (when you factor in our higher homicide and auto accident death rates, we have the highest average lifespan of any country), and quality costs. Further, we expect quality care more than others do, something of a “cultural” result of having high quality (NHS was introduced in the late 40s to a population familiar with hardship). Also, consider the point about homicide and auto accidents . . . the US has a much more problamatic and “Third World” population with more pathologies than typically seen in places like Sweden, Germany, etc. Intrisically, our demographics suggest we need more healthcare, which means higher costs.

Oh, and another factor is our broken tort system. This is not the primary factor IMO, but a significant secondary factor. It should also be one of the cost drivers that should be “easy” to fix, relatively speaking.

In addition to the factors mentioned above, there are two other reasons the cost per capita for the US are so high.

1- The distribution of health care. The U.S. ranks first among all developed nations in equality of care across the population. Europeans may need the care almost as much, they just don’t get it despite the socialized systems. Demand is artificially suppressed through denial of coverage.

2- The US funds about 40% of the world’s health care research, far outpacing the rest of the world in per capita spending and effectively subsidizing worldwide advancements in medicine.

Good point about :
2- The US funds about 40% of the world’s health care research, far outpacing the rest of the world in per capita spending and effectively subsidizing worldwide advancements in medicine.

Pharmaceuticals alone cost the US far above the rest of the countries, even for the same pills. We subsidize the rest.

Don, it was not the tax code; it was FDR’s wage and price controls. These had the effect they always do…you start having people find creative ways to wire around them. Hence, employers…bidding for good employees in a controlled market…started offering health care as a part of the employment package. The tax breaks followed.
As Thomas Sowell has also pointed out, you pay more for a Mercedes than a Chevy. We have Mercedes-level care commonly available. LOTS of nations are striving for a Chevy-level, so it is an apples/oranges comparison.

President Obama was, technically, telling the truth when he said “If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. ” See, with a logical implication, if the consequent is true (i.e. if we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid), the implication is true whether the antecedent is true or not.